The project approach: networked practice and learning from peers

Open and networked practice

The final project artefact is intended to be an open educational resource, so developing the project in an open environment was a meaningful way to explore and role model online participation. Online networks and open practices are an integral part of my personal (as a student) and professional (as a practitioner) world. Four main platforms were used to inform and develop the project: the Open University, Twitter, a personal blog and open journals. As the project was situated in my professional context, using established networks outside of the Open University was important. Other practitioners and Scouting volunteers presented different viewpoints, and diversity of opinion was helpful in critically reviewing the project development.

This personal blog was used as the central point with which to share the development of the project. I hope the blog has afforded participation in digital ‘creation’, alongside the development my digital identity. It does have a limited audience, but sharing posts through Twitter has increased this and also helped to extend the discussions (thanks all). New and existing contacts have aided reflection and signposted to further research and resources. Twitter was also beneficial when looking at the macro-environmental factors. Using the hashtag facility as a search tool highlighted current debates, projects and interested people. Furthermore, it afforded research on the move as posts could be read or bookmarked for future review from a mobile device. The main impact in being more open was that practitioners outside of the Open University engaged in the debates. This gave assurance, credibility and confidence in the project’s relevance for the wider world. 

Creating posters and peer review

The creation of a conference poster presented a chance to explore new, online, multimedia tools and consider alternative forms of digital creativity.

Multimedia methods

In face-to-face practice a variety of methods and media are used to deliver educational material and I wanted to mirror this within the project. I wanted to tell a story, but to keep the messages simple and reflective of core values, in order to engage and motivate the intended audience. Mayer’s (2005) cognitive theory of multi-media learning however, reminds us that we have separate, limited, channels for processing auditory and visual information and we need to get the mix of media right in order to actively process information and create coherent mental representations. 

As Scouting is about ‘learning by doing’, I adopted this approach. By experimenting with different media formats and presenting them early for review, I was able to determine the most appropriate approach. Animations provoked more emotional responses and recognition of their story-telling potential. The final decision to use a slideshow based animation was a result of asking Scouting volunteers to feedback on two different kinds of animation, in order to get a different perspective. They viewed the slideshow animations as more interactive and engaging, with greater potential for re-purposing.

The role of feedback

The process of engaging in feedback, on our own as well as others work, aided poster development. Feedback developed from simple comments to more detailed and constructive guidance as we engaged with other student’s material and reflected back on our own. A good example of this is how later feedback often asked about the theme and the artefact, as more students realised this was not explicit within their own posters. The first poster version created provoked attention-grabbing, motivational responses and recognised the impact of the visuals and logical approach it afforded. However feedback also helped develop the poster so that it became more explicit in the concepts it was exploring and included clearer links to the project questions and outcomes. Once again, feedback from outside of the Open University was also sought, to ensure that the approach and messages maintained a wider relevance, but also kept the wider network updated with the project progress. The process of feedback also helped in determining potential accessible alternatives. Following feedback and discussion with fellow students in OULive, an audio text version was created, which responded to comments and a simple slideshow version, with embedded alternative text for screen readers, for those who needed time to navigate the slides or visual descriptions of the content. The process of giving and receiving feedback has therefore been invaluable in critically evaluating the development of project resources.

So thanks all for being part of the project too!

The project topics: Digital identity and digital inclusion

Digital Inclusion

Defining digital inclusion is challenging as research and debates are often embedded in specific contexts. Most definitions converge around the idea that all members of society are able to access the affordances that technology offers (Seale, 2009, Selwyn and Facer, 2007).

Political and economic influences

There are strong political and economic influences throughout many of the debates on digital inclusion. The UK Government defines digital inclusion as ‘having the right access, skills, motivation and trust to confidently go online’ (Cabinet Office, 2014). However, the government’s motivations appear to be focused on creating economic opportunities, with commissioned work addressing access, through infrastructure projects with telecommunications companies, and skills, for example, the projects commissioned by Go ON UK (www.go-on.co.uk ). Projects addressing the motivation and trust barriers appear more limited. The government view of motivation supports the premise that going online makes it easier to find a job, improve household income, and get more benefits from public services. These motivations are predominantly economical and financial, rather than social and cultural.

Meaningfulness and digital choice

Further debates about the motivational barriers emerge mainly from the educational field, where educators are looking at how to utilise ‘technology-enhanced’ learning. Seale (2009) notes that a lack of skills is not the only influence on technology use. It must have some meaningful use in people’s lives and afford contextual uses; in other words, it needs to have ‘life-fit’. Online initiatives often forget that a person’s motivation and attitude towards the use of technology, may be as important as the access quality and location. Individuals develop positive and negative attitudes about technology, which, alongside other cultural barriers, need to be tackled. Understanding the ‘digital choices’ (Helsper, 2008) people make is a necessary factor when considering inclusion.

Scouting values and digital inclusion

Inclusion is therefore about opportunities and practices and not just the deficits and barriers. An individual’s values will be influential in determining the meaningfulness of using technology. Seale (2009) reminds us that people bring their own set of motivations, skills and resourcefulness to the online world. So could the existing motivations and skills of volunteers, founded upon shared values, motivate and encourage meaningfulness in digital participation?

Identity

The ‘identity’ topic emerged from research about the trust barriers to inclusion and the relevance of identity in the digital landscape. From a practitioner perspective, digital identity is at the forefront of discussions about online safety. A conscious comprehensive understanding of the nature of digital identity and how to manage it however, has yet to be developed (de Kerckhove and Almedia, 2013; Ollier-Malaterre and Rothbard, 2013).

Understanding identity

‘Identity’, put simply, is the perception and expression we have of ourselves. Influenced by cultural contexts and social interactions (Suke, 2009), it is generally agreed that identity is perceived differently in different contexts (Besley, 2011; Cullen, 2009). Accordingly, online identity is about how we present ourselves to others online, and how we perceive ourselves through our online interactions (Gradinaru, 2013).

Digital identity

Early debates about digital identity concentrated on anonymity and the multitude of opportunities the internet afforded. Technology has developed and is now embedded in everyday lives, a process Gradinaru (2013) called ‘technological domestication’. The internet is no longer a playground with which to construct different identities (although we still use the internet to explore different facets of identity), but has become a way of ‘customising’ our identities, more clearly linking back to the ‘real’. This means that individuals participating online need have an understanding of the structure of digital spaces, and how they influence and shape identity (Kimmons, 2014). For example, less face to face contact encourages more self-disclosure, which is the main affordance of social networking (Belk, 2013).

The challenges

Online spaces offer opportunities and challenges. The challenges converge around mis-understanding information. Digital identity is easier to misinterpret because the original context and meaning of digital presentations can be lost, as they are not necessarily linked to specific contexts, particular relationships or situations. Self-disclosure can lead to boundary dilemmas (Lannin and Scott, 2013), which is why most advice talks about the benefits of developing separate personal and professional digital identities. However, as Lannin and Scott (2013) note in their paper about how psychologists navigate the online world, it would be naïve to think that our private lives will never intersect with the professional.

Scouting values and managing identity

Individuals have to make their own decisions about digital identity, but educators can help empower them. They need a heightened awareness of the risks and rewards afforded by online participation in order to take responsibility and make choices about their own digital identity. By integrating Scouting values with messages about digital identity, could volunteers consider how to participate in ways that are meaningful and truthful for them, within a framework they already observe? 

References

Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477-500. [online] Available at: http://www.dies.uniud.it/tl_files/utenti/crisci/Belk%202013a.pdf (Accessed 2 January 2015)

Besley, T. (2011). Digitized Youth: Constructing identities in the creative knowledge economy. Annals Of Spiru Haret University, Journalism Studies, 12(1), 9-22.

 de Kerckhove, D., & de Almeida, C. M. (2013). What is a digital persona?. Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research, 11(3), 277-287 

Cabinet Office (2014) Government Digital Inclusion Strategy, 13 April 2014 [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-digital-inclusion-strategy (Accessed 2 January 2015) 

Cullen (2009) Culture, identity and information privacy in the age of digital government.  Online Information Review, 33(3), 405-421. 

Gradinaru, C. (2013). From Multitude to Convergence: Contemporary Trends in the Study of Online Identity. Argumentum: Journal the Seminar Of Discursive Logic, Argumentation Theory & Rhetoric, 11(2), 95-108. 

Helsper, Ellen (2008) Digital inclusion: an analysis of social disadvantage and the information society. Department for Communities and Local Government, London, UK. [online] Available at: http://www.esd.org.uk/esdtoolkit/communities/DigitalInclusion/tools%5COXiS%20Report.pdf (Accessed 2 January 2015)

Kimmons, R. (2014). Social Networking Sites, Literacy, and the Authentic Identity Problem. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 58(2), 93-98.

Lannin, D. G., & Scott, N. A. (2013). Social networking ethics: Developing best practices for the new small world. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 44(3), 135-141.

Ollier - Malaterre, A., Rothbard, N. P., & BERG, J. M. (2013). When worlds collide in cyberspace:How Boundary work in online social networks impacts professional relationships. Academy Of Management Review, 38(4), 645-669. 

Seale, J. (2009). Digital Inclusion. A research briefing by the technology enhanced learning phase of the teaching and learning research programme. [online] Available at: http://www.tlrp.org/docs/DigitalInclusion.pdf (Accessed 2 January 2015)

 Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (2007). Beyond the digital divide. Opening Education Reports. Bristol: Futurelab. [online]. Available at: http://www2.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Digital_Divide.pdf (Accessed 2 January 2015) 

Suke, C. (2009). College Male Students' Cultural Value Identity in the New Media World. China Media Research, 5(4), 41-46.

Part two: exploring concept of digital inclusion

Social and Digital disadvantage (Helsper, 2008)

Helsper’s (2008) study explored the relationship between social and digital disadvantage using available empirical data. It is a comprehensive look at the links between digital and social engagement and focuses on the debates around socio-economic links to digital inclusion. The study picks up on the question about use – and asks does it matter that many households don’t use the internet?

Key findings

The report found that those in socially deprived areas were also least likely to have access to digital resources, and the analysis suggested that this had not been improving. However it points out that there are clear exceptions from the norm. These included the ‘unexpectedly engaged’, who tended to be younger, single, socially disadvantaged and certain ethnic groups. It also included the ‘unexpectedly disengaged’, who were those in more rural areas, older and unemployed.  The analysis highlighted that educational achievement, employment and rural access could affect engagement, but this was not necessarily because of access or skill. There were links found with the level at which people accessed technology and social isolation and economic disadvantage. Those who suffer specific social disadvantages were least likely to benefit from technology that could potentially help them (for example, those with poor education faced barriers to access education, the elderly faced a reduction in the likelihood of using social application).

Digital choice

Helsper introduces the idea of ‘digital choice’. This concept, I think, encapsulates the idea that just because you can go online, you do. Online initiatives that focus purely on access and digital services, forget about the support factors that are needed for social inclusion, which may help with engagement with technology. Attitude to technology are just as important as access quality and the access location.

This picks up on some of the categories that the Tinder foundation have highlighted:

Digitally Excluded – perceive they have no access

Digitally Dismissive – choose not to use, but have access and skills

Digitally Included – have the desire, access and skills

Digitally Determined – have the access but it is not readily available

Digital choice is driven by cultural factors and social context. This means that individuals may have positive and negative attitudes and we need to tackle these attitudes and cultural barriers. This report in particular highlights that despite discussions around inclusion, the potential for the internet to address social isolation and economic disadvantage are largely untapped, because the focus has been on the barriers and have not included the enablers. There is a need to address ‘digital choice’ as well as ‘digital divides’. Digital disengagement is a complex problem and there are social, cultural and attitudinal factors that inform digital choice.

Beyond the digital divide (Selwyn and Facer, 2007)

This report from Future lab, brings us back into the sphere of education, and focuses on the more traditional approach to ‘digital divides’ and the uptake of digital technology. This puts inclusion back in to the realms of ability; “All members of society are able to access the affordances created and offered by technology use”; and focuses on the debates around digital literacies, which is the area of the report that is of most interest here. However it’s worth noting that the authors remind us that access is not just a bout broadband, but also about wireless and satellite connectivity.

The report states that skills are not limited to basic physical actions like keyboard skills but also to those which have technical and social qualities.  We need both a basic literacy, that is the ability to read and write; and a ‘functional’ literacy, the ability to put our skills in to use.  The report develops three core areas of literacy:

•  Information literacy – to be able to discern the quality of content
• Adaptive literacy – to be able to develop new skills whilst using ICT 
• Occupational literacy – to apply skills in a business, education or domestic environment.

  

Definitions of digital inclusion

INCLUSION – DIVIDE – CHOICES - PARTICIPATION

So where does that take us on our analysis and development of the concept of digital inclusion? Clearly inclusion is a complex area, and, going back to what we said at the start, it is not just about access or about skills. People need to decide whether using technology is meaningful in their lives, but we also need to remember that inclusion is not just about deficits and barriers but also about opportunities, outcomes and practices. These reports highlight the conversations that continue to take place at a government and education level. There are barriers, access is important, people need the skills and there are technology and social issues to address.

We need to localise these conversations, so that we truly understand the cultural and social enablers.  I have already written my thoughts on inclusion with my own context and that of the project, linking back to the ideas of openness. For me it’s about participation, and empowering people (giving them the motivation and belief in themselves), to participate online. It’s not about the financial or economic benefits to the individual, but about the wider societal impact of participating in the world with others. This takes me back to how I think that self-efficacy links to empowerment. 

Seale (2009) reminded us that people bring their own set of motivations, skills and resourcefulness to the online world, and my hope is that by highlighting the skills and resourcefulness, as well as the values that people share in my context, we can encourage participation and inclusion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Helsper, Ellen (2008) Digital inclusion: an analysis of social disadvantage and the information society. Department for Communities and Local Government, London, UK. [online] Available at: http://www.esd.org.uk/esdtoolkit/communities/DigitalInclusion/tools%5COXiS%20Report.pdf

Seale, J. (2009). Digital Inclusion. A research briefing by the technology enhanced learning phase of the teaching and learning research programme. [online] Available at: http://www.tlrp.org/docs/DigitalInclusion.pdf

Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (2007). Beyond the digital divide. Opening Education Reports. Bristol: Futurelab. Retrieved October, 24, 2007. [online]. Available at: http://www2.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Digital_Divide.pdf

Digital inclusion - what does it mean?

For the first part of my project I have been exploring digital inclusion and what it really means. Like most ‘concepts’, there is a lack of clarity around definition. This puts it in danger of becoming another meaningless concept that is bandied about. So what have I found?

Economic and political motivations

The UK Government defines digital inclusion as ‘having the right access, skills, motivation and trust to confidently go online’ (Cabinet Office, 2014). They want us to be digitally capable of going online and using it to improve our lives. However the government’s motivations stem from creating opportunities and ensuring that we have the competencies needed to develop the economy. This is evident from that fact that many of the projects that have arisen from the Digital Strategy have focused on access and skills ( see Go ON UK ). While large companies are working alongside the government to ensure we have the infrastructure to deliver platforms and services, Go-ON UK are working with partners to make sure that adults have the basic digital skills needed. And there are some fantastic projects being delivered, many of which are focusing on those who are deemed to be excluded (socio-economic areas of older demographics).

 In fact even Europe has a digital strategy to ‘help digital technologies, including the internet, deliver sustainable economic growth’. Once again this focuses on access and skills, although there is also mention of cyber-security. However this focus on access and skills, has a hint of technological determinism (technology will make the world a better place) about it. It divides people into the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’, focusing on access and skills. Skills and access are not the only things that influence decision about whether people find using technology appropriate or meaningful in their lives.

Motivation to go online

The government strategy highlights ‘motivation’ and ‘trust’ as elements of their digital strategy, and say that overcoming the barriers is about all of them, but there seems to be little in depth discussion around the motivation and trust barriers. The motivation seems to be that being able to go online will make it easier to find a job, to improve household income, to get more benefits from public services and entertainment. But I wonder whether these motivations are too ‘capitalist’ in their approach. In other words, they are appealing to people economically and financially, rather than socially and culturally. Motivation is about the relevance to the individual, and the triggers will be different for different people. There cannot be a one size fits all approach.

Digital Inclusion (Seale, 2009)

Seale’s (2009) report is an update about the research being conducted around digital inclusion, and what wider discussions can bring to the development of technology enhanced learning. She highlights in the opening that definitions of digital inclusion

 ‘tend to embed within them an expectation or imperative that digital inclusion happens when all members of society are able to access the affordances offered by technology use ‘(page 3)

The report focuses on four aspects: Access, Use, Participation and Empowerment. Access, as is seen by the Government’s digital strategy links to technologies and services (direct access is seen as being able to access technology and indirect access is about accessing online services). Use, is highlighted as mainly being about the skills that individuals have to use technology. However, Seale notes that it is not just a lack of skills that influences technology use. Technology must have some meaningful use in people’s lives and afford contextual uses; in other words, does it have a ‘life-fit’. Seale also asks us whether non-use of technology is problematic. This is an important question, which later papers will explore.

Traditionally, ‘inclusion’ is focused on helping people to participate in society. Therefore digital inclusion is about helping to reduce the disadvantaged, and encourage participation for the marginalised. (see the Helsper paper on my next blog post for the link between social and digital exclusion).  Seale draws our attention to Cook and Light (2006) who explore participation and see it as a fluid process and make a distinction between active (we influence the way technology is used) and passive  (recipients of the service) participation. This leads on to the final aspect, empowerment. You see power comes up a lot in discussions about the online world, but also in discussions about inclusion. Seale highlights that the government see technology as a vehicle for empowerment, and link this to the idea of independence. Seale issues some sensible warnings about linking empowerment to independence and self-sufficiency, as it leads us to link digital inclusion with skills deficits, forgetting that people have a whole host of other ‘strengths, motivations and resourcefulness’ to bring with them. Personally I would rather use the term self-efficacy, that is, an individual believes in their own ability, which is what I think empowerment is all about rather than independence.

The key point that Seale is making is that digital inclusion is multi-faceted. It is a social, cultural and cognitive concepts, and so we must define and redefine for our own contexts while recognising the wider discussions that are going on. If we think about inclusion in terms of access, then we consider how equality of opportunity can benefit. If we think about inclusion in terms of use and empowerment, then we are prompted to think about the equality of the outcomes not just the opportunities.

For my next blog post I will be exploring the concept of digital inclusion some more, and looking at how this links to social disadvantage, participation, and whether we need to change how we look at this, and consider whether digital choice is a good thing.

Cabinet Office (2014) Government Digital Inclusion Strategy, 13 April 2014 [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-digital-inclusion-strategy

Cook, J & Light, A. (2006) New patterns of power and participation? Designing ICT for Informal and Personalised Flexible Community Learning. E-Learning, 3, 1, 51-61.

Seale, J. (2009). Digital Inclusion. A research briefing by the technology enhanced learning phase of the teaching and learning research programme. [online] Available at: http://www.tlrp.org/docs/DigitalInclusion.pdf

Project plan version XXO

As you know I am using this space to share my project for H818 and the work that I am doing around this. Part of this is to help me to share, and part of it is to make myself think out loud and be able to go back and look at how my thought processes have changed and developed.

So here is the next version of the project (I have forgotten what version).

Being Prepared. Adopting a values-driven approach to digital inclusion within a volunteer organisation.

Purpose. Scouting volunteers do amazing things with young people every day, but for some there still exists a fear of using online tools. Reminding volunteers of the values and methods of Scouting can help to overcome their fears and understand that the online world is another ‘undiscovered world’ of opportunity.

Linking to the conference theme: a focus on Inclusion. Looking through the lens of 'inclusion', the project will investigate the wider issues of digital inclusion as seen through the four barriers identified by the Government’s Digital Inclusion Strategy (Access, Skills, Motivation and Trust)

Project aim and scope. The project’s aim is to explore barriers in relation to making the online world accessible to volunteers, focusing on motivational and trust barriers. Firstly, the ‘access’ barriers relate to connectivity and availability, over which the organisation has less influence and work is being undertaken by the government to address this. Secondly there already exists a wealth of debate about the ‘skills’ barrier, and it is assumed adults will need to learn new skills.

The ‘motivation’ and ‘trust’ barriers are social and psychological, as well as practical barriers to digital inclusion. These barriers require volunteers to explore their fears about safety and identity, and be able to translate their ‘offline’ selves to the ‘online’ world. The project activities will look at existing research and practices to identify the issues surrounding these barriers, in order to educate volunteers and provide a sound basis for taking an approach that links back to the values and methods of Scouting.

***************************************

Over the next few weeks I will be exploring the motivation and trust barriers, which neatly follow on from the discussions that Amanda Palmer brought up in the last blog post. So please feel free to share your thoughts or experiences about the barriers of being online, from a social or psychological perspective. 

Digital Inclusion and a different lens for my project

As you can see, it's been two weeks since my last confession! Work means that sometimes I purge on study over a few days. A bit like watching a good tv show...honest!

In the meantime, I have tweaked my project and found some key resources to link in to it.






Government Digital Inclusion strategy

It's not often that I come across something from the government and think...ohhh....this will be useful. However the inclusion strategy, which I had already heard about, was.

The UK Government defines digital inclusion as ‘having the right access, skills, motivation and trust to confidently go online’ (Cabinet Office, 2014). 

The strategy sets out how the government and partners from the public, private and voluntary sectors will increase digital inclusion. This means helping people become capable of using and benefiting from the internet. Now there are many discussions one can have around this strategy but in the context of my project it does two things. Firstly, it shows that there is a political context for inclusion (and my next task is to do a Political, Economic, Social, Technological - aka PEST analysis). Secondly it breaks down the barriers into a nice four piece set:

There are 4 main kinds of challenge people face:

• access - the ability to actually go online and connect to the internet
• skills - to be able to use the internet
• motivation - knowing the reasons why using the internet is a good thing
• trust - the risk of crime, or not knowing where to start to go online

Looking at each in more detail, we can see that digital exclusion involves some significant and wide ranging challenges. When someone has the access, skills, motivation and trust to go online to do things that benefit them day to day, they are digitally capable.

Tinder, Digital inclusion

My project’s aim is to explore barriers in relation to making the online world accessible to volunteers, focusing on motivational and trust barriers. 

Firstly, the ‘access’ barriers relate to connectivity and availability, over which the organisation has less influence. Secondly there already exists a wealth of debate about the ‘skills’ barrier, and it is assumed adults will need to learn new skills. My theory is, that when I do my PEST analysis, many of these will come up, as access and skills are top of the 'things we can probably do something about'.

Motivation an trust

The ‘motivation’ and ‘trust’ barriers are social and psychological, as well as practical barriers to digital inclusion. These barriers require people to explore their fears about safety and identity, and be able to translate their ‘offline’ selves to the ‘online’ world. 

My project activities will look at existing research and practices to identify the issues surrounding these barriers, in order to educate volunteers and provide a sound basis for taking an approach that links back to the values and methods of Scouting. For me these barriers are all about social empowerment.

Does inclusion matter?

The simple answer is yes. If education is a life-long process of development as an individual and as a part of society then adults as well as young people should be participating and interacting online. However there are challenges to overcome in assisting online participation. 

Project building - psychological barriers to using social media

Project planning has begun in earnest as the first assignment deadline approaches. So being that this module is all about being a 'networked practitioner', it is expected that we try and explore our openness and practices. Thus I am trying to be open while working through the planning process, one, so I can reflect on how this feel, and two, so that I can start to use my network to help. 

So I am sharing my work in progress, as it progresses. So if you think you can help me with the research or theory, or you want to lend me your ear, comment or feedback on anything, please do. And remember it is a work in progress!!

Project plan - part 1

Being Prepared. Exploring the psychological barriers to volunteers using social media and adopting a values-driven approach to empowerment.

Project overview

“You wouldn't climb a mountain without being prepared, so you shouldn't use social media without doing the same!”

Background

Scouting volunteers do amazing things with young people every day, but there exists a fear of using online tools like social media for Scouting purposes. We help volunteers overcome their fear of the online world by reminding them of the values and methods of Scouting and that the online world is just another ‘undiscovered world’ of opportunity. Thus they can be part of the ‘open landscape’, exhibiting their values, being appropriate role-models and effective 'digital' citizens by working in partnership with young people.

Linking to the conference theme: a focus on Inclusion

Looking through the lens of 'inclusion', the project will investigate the wider issues of why adults don't want to use social media or why they feel social media doesn't include them. There are physical barriers like poor internet access and knowledge and skills, however this project will explore the psychological barriers that make volunteers feel powerless or afraid to use social media.  If we want them to use social media then we need to empower them by addressing their fears. This will involve looking at and helping them to manage the risks, as well as their own identities. In summary, Scouting is all about overcoming fears, trying something new, creating community and being empowered. Consequently the values and methods of Scouting are synchronous with overcoming the psychological barriers of using social media.

Project purpose and scope

One of the main deliverables of this project is to create a proto-type multimedia learning artefact for volunteers. However the project’s underlying purpose is to explore role of psychological barriers in relation to making social media accessible to volunteers.

This project will focus on three main topics: identity, safety and confidence and explore the barriers of fear and power within an open environment. Therefore the theme of inclusion needs to address issues of confidence, safety and identity in relation to overcoming fear and feeling empowered.

This is an upside down project, because the key messages to empower volunteers are already in place. The project activities will seek to underpin these key messages by drawing on existing research and practice to identify the issues surrounding these barriers and provide a sound theoretical basis for taking this approach and linking back to the values and methods of Scouting.

working on a project title....Be Prepared

My job (hence my context)
I work for The Scout Association at Headquarters. My job is National Development Officer

(Safeguarding). Basically a large part of what I do is develop resources and training for volunteers to help them understand their roles and responsibilities within Scouting in regards to Safeguarding (Child protection, anti-bullying, safer recruitment). So I spend a lot of my time out and about meeting and working with volunteers and training trainers who will go on to deliver safeguarding training to volunteers across the country. It truly is an amazing organisation which can't really be paid justice to in a few words. Having worked for the organisation for nearly 7 years I am proud to be a Scout and share the values of the organisation.

My project
My project will be based on work that I already do around empowering adult volunteers in Scouting to use social media in a safe and fun way. For me safeguarding is about enabling people to do things, rather than stopping them - empowering rather than scaring.

You wouldn't climb a mountain...... without being prepared, and so you shouldn't use social media without doing the same!
Currently I offer guidance on a weekly basis about how to use social media safely, and so for my project I want to explore this, and link in research as well as create a multimedia artifact that can be used in work. 


Open education in an open landscape
Looking through the lens of 'inclusion', my project is focused on why adults don't want to use social media or why they feel social media doesn't include them. There are of course some physical barriers like internet access and personal knowledge and skills. However I think that the psychological barriers are the main thing that is making volunteers feel powerless or afraid to use social media. The media today is constantly telling us what a dangerous place the internet is, and e-safety messages for young people are about the risks and the harm that may befall them. For adults working with young people this makes the internet a scary place, especially as for some it's not their natural environment. So we need to help them understand that it doesn't have to be scary, and they can prepare for it in the same way as they would prepare for other 'scary' scouting activities (like climbing).

If we want them to use social media then we need to empower them by addressing their fears and giving them the skills. This will involve looking at the risks and helping them to see both the good and the bad of openness, and helping them to manage their own identities.

Psychological barriers = confidence (power), safety, identity. 
Self-efficacy= make them believe they can do it by adopting a scouting approach (values, preparation, risk assessment and openness)

Key messages:

• Social media doesn't have to be scary
• Use the skills and processes already have to undertake the activity
• Values-driven approach
• Take ownership of identity
• Stay safe by mitigating risk, behaving appropriately

Outcome - Volunteers do amazing things with young people everyday, and we help them overcome their fear of the online world and help them to be part of the open landscape, exhibiting their values and being appropriate roles models and effective 'digital' citizens.